The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court.

There was a perception that the purpose of the use of a promissory note is to secure the obligations of a certain person against the issuer of a promissory note.

Even if such fact is recognized as one of the active factors in recognizing that the issuer of a promissory note has an intention to bear a civil guarantee obligation, it cannot be inferred that a guarantee contract under the civil law is established between the issuer of a promissory note and the obligee.

Furthermore, even if a creditor bears a civil guarantee obligation for the obligation which is the cause of the issuance of a promissory note from the creditor’s standpoint, the issuer of a promissory note has the intent to request the issuer of the promissory note, and the issuer of the promissory note also has issued the promissory note in response thereto with the awareness of the creditor’s intent and obligation. In other words, the fact that the issuer of a promissory note does not merely provide credit to the creditor in the form of a civil guarantee, but also extended credit in the form of a civil guarantee. The relationship between the creditor and the issuer of a promissory note, the motive leading up to the issuance of a promissory note, the process and method of negotiations between the issuer and the creditor, and the transactional relationship can be acknowledged in light of all the circumstances before and after the issuance of a promissory note, and the degree that it is possible to establish a guarantee contract under the civil law between the issuer of a promissory note and the creditor. In short, the issuer of a promissory note, in principle, bears only

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da17928, Sept. 7, 2007; 2009Da44884, Oct. 29, 2009). The lower court reasoning of the first instance judgment.